HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 WRIA 17 Water Supply Storage Alternatives AnalysisJefferson County
WRIA 17 Water Supply Storage Alternatives Analysis
damEconomic and Engineering Services, Inc,
Bellevue Mount Vernon Olympia Portland Iii-Cities
Water Supply Storage Alternatives Analysis
WRIA 17 - Eastern Jefferson County
October 31, 2003
Prepared by:
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.
PO Box 976
626 Columbia Street NW, Suite 2A
Olympia, WA 98501
(360) 352 -5090
(360) 357 -6573 FAX
In association with:
Montgomery Water Group, Inc.
PO Box 2517
803 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98083 -2517
(425) 827 -3243
(425) 827 -3509 FAX
* Olympia, WA * Bellevue, WA * Tri Cities, WA * Mt. Vernon *Portland, OR *
Acronyms
1 Summary
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
1.2 Key Findings and Recommendations ................................... ............................... 1 -1
2 Background
3 Objectives /Approaches
4 Regional Setting
4.1 Water Supply ........................................................................ ............................... 4 -1
4.2 Water Use — Olympic Gravity Water System ....................... ............................... 4 -1
4.2.1 City Demand ................................................................ ............................4 -1
4.2.2 PTPC Demand .......................................................... ............................... 4 -1
4.3 Water Use — Tri -Area (PUD Service with Ground Water) ... ............................... 4 -2
4.4 Stream Flow and Storage Needs ........................................... ............................... 4 -3
4.4.1 "Typical Year" .......................................................... ............................... 4 -3
4.4.2 "Low Flow Year" (i.e., Drought in 2002) ................. ............................... 4 -6
4.4.3 "Stream Flow Management Options" ....................... ............................... 4 -6
4.4.4 Additional Notes Regarding Instream Flows .......... ............................... 4 -11
5 Policy Setting
6 Conservation /Reuse
6.1 Jefferson County PUD .......................................................... ............................... 6 -1
6. 1.1 Conservation ............................................................. ............................... 6 -1
6.1.2 Reuse ............................................................................ ............................6 -2
6.2 City of Port Townsend .......................................................... ............................... 6 -2
6.2.1 Conservation ............................................................. ............................... 6 -2
6.2.2 Reuse ............................................................................ ............................6 -3
6.3 Port Townsend Paper Company ............................................ ............................... 6 -3
6.3.1 Mill Operations ......................................................... ............................... 6 -3
6.3.2 Curtailment ............................................................... ............................... 6 -3
6.3.3 Conservation/Reuse .................................................. ............................... 6 -4
7 Conjunctive Use
7.1 Discussion ................................................................................ ............................7 -1
8 Aquifer Storage and Retrieval
Table of Contents I
Jefferson County
9 Olympic Gravity Water System
9.1 Operation of the OGWS ........................................................ ............................... 9 -1
9.2 Operational Improvements ....................................................... ............................9 -1
9.3 Costs/Benefits ....................................................................... ............................... 9 -2
10 Storage
10.1
Initial Site Selection Criteria ................................................... ...........................10
-1
10.2
Preliminary Site Selection ................................................... ...............................
10 -1
10.3
Refined Site Selection and Analysis ................................... ...............................
10 -2
10.3.1 Hydrology ............................................................... ...............................
10 -2
10.3.2 Conceptual Design .................................................. ...............................
10 -2
10.3.3 Cost Estimates ............................................................. ...........................10
-2
10.4
Site Analysis ........................................................................... ...........................10
-3
10.4.1 Penny Creek Drainage Water Offset Project .......... ...............................
10 -3
10.4.2 Lord's Lake Expansion ............................................... ...........................10
-3
10.4.3 City Lake Expansion ................................................... ...........................10
-3
10.4.4 Excavated Site Storage ........................................... ...............................
10 -4
10.4.5 Natural Lake Storage .................................................. ...........................10
-4
10.4.6 Other Potential Options Considered ........................... ...........................10
-5
10.5
Cost Estimates ..................................................................... ...............................
10 -5
10.6
Management Options .......................................................... ...............................
10 -6
Table of Contents U
Jefferson County
1 -1 Summary of Water Supply Alternatives ........................................... ............................... 1 -2
4 -1 Average Monthly Natural Flows (cfs) (modeled flows without diversion) for the Big
Quilcene River below the Diversion and at Highway 101 ............... ............................... 4 -4
6 -1 PTPC Mill Conservation Activities .................................................. ............................... 6 -4
7 -1 Jefferson County PUD Water Sources and Demands ....................... ............................... 7 -1
10 -1 Summary of Storage Option Cost Estimates .................................. ............................... 10 -6
4 -1
City of Port Townsend Water Demand Forecast .............................. ............................... 4 -2
4 -2
Big Quilcene River Flows (Typical) and Water Needs July- October .............................
4 -5
4 -3
Big Quilcene River Flows (2002) and Water Needs August- December .........................
4 -8
4 -4
Big Quilcene River Flows (2002) and Water Needs (with Instream Flow req't
of 30 cfs from Oct 1 — Dec 31) August- December ........................... ...............................
4 -9
4 -5
Big Quilcene River Flows (Typical) and Water Needs (assuming no diversions
forSept 1 — Nov 1) .......................................................................... ...............................
4 -10
10 -1
Site Alternative Map ............................................................................ ...........................10
-8
10 -2
Penny Creek Alternative .................................................................. ............................... 10 -9
10 -3
Lords Lake Alternative ........................................................................ ..........................10
-10
10 -4
City Lake Alternative .......................................................................... ..........................10
-11
10 -5
Excavated Storage Alternative ....................................................... ...............................
10 -12
10 -6
Natural Lake Alternative ..................................................................... ..........................10
-13
10 -7
Big Quilcene On- Channel Alternative ........................................... ...............................
10 -14
Table of Contents Ili
Jefferson County
Ac -ft
Acre feet
ADD
Average day demand
ASR
Aquifer storage and retrieval
CDM
Camp Dresser and McKee
cfs
Cubic feet per second
City
City of Port Townsend
CT
Contact time
gpd
Gallons per day
GIS
Geographical Information System
gpm
Gallons per minute
MG
Million gallons
mgd
Million gallons per day
OGWS
Olympic Gravity Water System
PDD
Peak day demand
PTPC
Port Townsend Paper Company
PUD
Jefferson County Public Utility District
UGA
Urban growth area
USGS
US Geological Survey
WRIA
Water Rights Inventory Area
Acronyms iv
Jefferson County
1.1 Introduction
This project was undertaken as a part of the watershed planning efforts in Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 17, which comprises eastern Jefferson and Clallam counties. The goal of
the effort was to identify and evaluate potential means by which currently authorized amounts of
water could be diverted, captured, recovered, reused, stored, or otherwise utilized more effectively
and efficiently. Specifically, this effort was targeted to supplement current supplies during drought
or low flow periods, in or near the vicinity of Port Townsend, and what is referred to as the "Tri-
Area" of Jefferson County.
Although not a part of the project's initial scope, an additional task was defined by the WRIA 17
Planning Unit following a workshop. The nature of this task was to identify water supplies (both
surface water and ground water) that might be used to supplement natural stream flows to
potentially improve anadromous and native fisheries production and habitat conditions in the Big
and Little Quilcene River watersheds. This effort, however, was not conducted with the benefit of
analyses demonstrating water needs for fish, either in quantity of quality.
1.2 Key Findings and Recommendations
While this investigation has been commonly referred to as a "storage analysis," it has not been
limited to include only surface water storage options. Other water supply alternatives have also
been explored, such as conservation, reuse, operational modifications to existing delivery systems,
and aquifer storage and retrieval. A total of six surface water storage options were analyzed and
compared against these other types of water supply enhancements. Table 1 -1 provides a summary
of all alternatives considered. Overall, these water supply alternatives, including storage, represent
only elements of water resource management in Jefferson County; they should not be considered
complete resource strategies by themselves. Details regarding each option are provided in later
sections of the report.
The following action steps are recommended as the WRIA 17 Planning Unit works toward the
objectives stated above.
Take the Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) power generating turbine offline when
PTPC and the City of Port Townsend (City) begin to withdraw Lords Lake storage without
any refilling. This refers to shutting down the turbine immediately when storage begins to be
withdrawn without being replaced by flows from the river. This is an activity that can
currently be implemented and will optimize the use of Lords Lake storage in meeting PTPC
and City needs during low flow periods.
Section 1 - Summary 1 -1
Jefferson County
Conservation/Reuse
Jefferson County PUD 11 NA (2) Moderate
City of Port Townsend 3 -5 NA (2) High
Port Townsend Paper Company 103 $4,000 Moderate
Conjunctive Use(3)
Use of PUD's existing wells
Use of newly developed wells
73
73
$82,000
$55,000
Low
Moderate
Operational Modi icadons (4)
0
NA
High
Additional Surface Water Storage (5)
Penny Creek
84
$14,000
Moderate
Lords Lake Enlargement
80
$12,000
High
City Lake Enlargement
97
$12,500
High
Off - Channel Excavated Lake
81
$19,000
Moderate
Natural Lake
91
$14,500
Moderate
Run -of- River, On- Channel
81
$62,000
Low
Notes: MG = million gallons; NA = Not Applicable
(1) "Low Flow Period" defined as being two months (60 days) long, during late summer /early autumn. In general, during drought years there is a need of approximately 50 -110 million gallons of
water in excess of what can be provided by existing sources of supply in the area.
(2) Cost estimates were not developed for conservation and reuse activities that might be implemented by the PUD and Port Townsend in the future, since there are a variety of activities that maybe
used (some of which have little cost and others which have significant costs) and due to the fact that conservation and reuse alone do not appear adequate to provide sufficient additional water
supplies.
(3) Conjunctive use involves the use of surface supply when such supplies are plentiful (i.e., during high flow periods) and the use of ground water supplies during low flow periods. In order to
conjunctively use the PUD's existing wells, additional iron and manganese treatment facilities would be required, as would filtration on the surface water supply conveyed to the Tri-Area from the
Olympic Gravity Water System. The use of newly developed wells farther up in the watershed may negate the need for ground water treatment; however, well drilling costs would be added to the
still remaining need to provide surface water treatment for water conveyed to the Tri-Area. These items are the primary elements of the cost estimates.
(4) This refers to installation of new valves and telemetry on the Olympic Gravity Water System to reduce overflows and more efficiently operate the system throughout the year. Benefits would be
realized during high flow periods, as overflows would be reduced; however, benefits are negligible during low flow periods.
(5) Potential environmental impacts related to surface water storage projects include:
• degradation or removal of wildlife habitat
• degradation or removal of wetlands
• degraded water quality during construction
Section 1 — Summary 1_2
Jefferson County
2. Identify target stream flows and periods of time when augmented flows in the Big Quilcene
River would potentially enhance fisheries and fish habitat. While the City and PTPC
currently operate the Olympic Gravity Water System so as to maintain a flow of at least 27
cubic feet per second in the Big Quilcene River, no formal determinations have been made as
to the magnitude and timing of additional flows (as could potentially be provided by additional
storage) that would be beneficial to fish and aquatic habitat. Such information would help to
shape the planning and design of future storage.
3. Investigate more closely the concept of additional ground water development. There are
many potential benefits associated with the conjunctive use of ground water and surface water
supplies. Upon completion of a pending US Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of ground
water in Eastern Jefferson County, the Planning Unit should consider investigating this option
further, focusing more narrowly upon any potential aquifers identified in the USGS study.
4. Revisit the option of construction of additional storage. Storage needs should be more refined
and focused as a result of the determination of fish needs and the feasibility of additional
ground water development. It is recommended that the Planning Unit then revisit the storage
options presented in this report. In particular, the two options most worthy of further review
are the Lords Lake expansion alternative (as it is the most inexpensive) and the Penny Creek
storage alternative (as it provides the greatest direct benefit to fisheries and fish habitat, due to
the ability to release flows directly back into the Big Quilcene River system).
Section 1 - Summary 1-3
Jefferson County
It has been an occasional occurrence for diversion of water from the Quilcene River system to
cease during the dry part of the year, August through October, and a common occurrence for the
Little Quilcene River, in order to maintain river flows. However, supply to the City of Port
Townsend (City) and the Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) mill has been maintained with
raw water storage in the system (Lords Lake and City Lake).
In 2002, an unusually dry late summer period forced PTPC to curtail operations by reducing the
production of pulp and paper (Bremerton Sun, November 1, 2002) for two weeks, as reliance upon
storage alone was not adequate to meet water demands and leave sufficient water in the Big
Quilcene River for fish and habitat. PTPC is Jefferson County's largest private employer,
currently employing approximately 350 people. This event resulted in a temporary loss of about
20 jobs (and mill profit loss) for the two week period, and has raised concerns about long -term
supply in the area for both fish and people (environment and economy).
As part of the watershed planning efforts in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17, a
"storage" study was commissioned to examine what measures might be available to overcome
these types of shortages in the future, while perhaps also bolstering instream flow levels during
critical times. Funding for the evaluation was provided under a Washington State Department of
Ecology grant.
The purpose of this project is to evaluate storage, and other water supply alternatives, as options
for reducing the likelihood of water shortages in eastern Jefferson County. The focus of this effort
has been on the area's two largest water purveyance systems: one serving the City and PTPC, and
the other serving the Tri-Area (Chimacum, Irondale, and Hadlock, along with Indian and
Marrowstone Islands).
Section 2 - Background 2.1
Jefferson County
The goal of this study was to identify and evaluate potential means by which currently authorized
amounts of water could be diverted, captured, recovered, reused, stored, or otherwise utilized more
effectively and efficiently. Specifically, this effort was targeted to supplement current supplies
during drought or low flow periods, in or near the vicinity of the City of Port Townsend (City), and
what is referred to as the "Tri- Area" of Jefferson County. While this investigation has been
commonly referred to as a "storage analysis," it has not been limited to include only surface water
storage options. Other water supply alternatives have also been explored, such as conservation,
reuse, operational modifications to existing delivery systems, and aquifer storage and retrieval.
Although not a part of the project's initial scope, an additional task was defined by the WRIA 17
Planning Unit following a workshop. The nature of this task was to identify water supplies (both
surface water and ground water) that might be used to supplement natural stream flows to
potentially improve anadromous and native fisheries production and habitat conditions in the Big
and Little Quilcene River watersheds. This effort, however, was not conducted with the benefit of
analyses demonstrating water needs for fish, either in quantity of quality.
The scope of work included the following approach:
• Acquisition of Available Reports and Data. The effort began by obtaining available drawings,
historic records, studies, and reports. The most current and detailed topographic mapping
obtainable based on Geographical Information System (GIS) "LIDAR" imaging and US
Geological Survey (USGS) maps were obtained through Jefferson County.
• Preliminary Review of Data and Development of a Preliminary List of Criteria and
Alternatives. The evaluation considered a number of potential surface water storage options.
These included entirely new water storage reservoirs encompassing natural storage features
(i.e., local canyons and lakes), expansion of existing storage facilities (i.e., Lords Lake and City
Lake), and the creation of entirely new storage facilities by excavating undeveloped property.
The focus was kept to a corridor surrounding the primary water conveyance system for this
region; namely the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS), simply because this provides the
most viable and lowest cost transport of water.
■ Workshop with Planning Unit Members to Refine Study Objectives. A workshop was
conducted with interested members of the Planning Unit. Attending were representatives of
the City, Jefferson County, and Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD). This workshop
served to narrow the project's focus to alternatives that were believed to best serve the intended
purpose or goals for this study.
■ Field Reconnaissance. Several field reconnaissance trips were made to identify, screen, and
evaluate potential surface water storage sites.
■ Alternatives Analysis. Analysis consisted of development of data on each of the targeted
storage sites and on the potential alternatives of conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and
retrieval, and operational modifications.
Section 3 - Objectives /Approaches 3 -1
Jefferson County
■ Presentation and Report Development. Following a presentation to the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 Planning Unit, this report was developed to document the study
and findings.
Section 3 - ObjectivestApproaches 3 -2
Jefferson County
4.1 Water Supply
Water for eastern Jefferson County comes mainly from two sources: the Quilcene River system
and ground water sources. The Quilcene River system, including the Big Quilcene and the Little
Quilcene Rivers, supplies a maximum of approximately 19.4 million gallons (MG) per day (mgd)
via a pipeline to the City of Port Townsend (City). The system has two raw water storage
reservoirs along its path: Lords Lake (500 MG in size) and City Lake (120 MG). In addition to
serving the residents of the City, this system also supplies the Port Townsend Paper Company
(PTPC) with water for paper manufacturing. When interruptions to this surface water supply occur
due to river turbidity or times of low flow, storage is used to compensate. The largest threat to the
supply is extended periods of below normal rainfall and corresponding low river flows during the
late summer and fall months.
The portion of the population not receiving water from the Olympic Gravity Water System
(OGWS) (approximately two- thirds of the area's residents) obtains their supply from ground water.
This supply can be from private domestic wells or from small to medium sized water systems. The
largest of the ground water systems in the area is the Jefferson County Public Utility District
(PUD) system in what is commonly referred to as the Tri-Area.
4.2 Water Use - Olympic Gravity Water System
The City and PTPC are the primary users of the OGWS. The system was designed to meet the
values generally represented in a contract between the City and PTPC. The contract allows the
City 5 mgd and PTPC has the remainder of the system's capacity, which is generally described as a
total of 19.4 mgd.
4.2.1 City Demand
The City currently has a population of approximately 8,455 (Washington State Office of
Financial Management estimate, April 2002). Projections for future water use to year 2046
are presented in the City's Water System Plan. This information is provided in Exhibit 4 -1.
Actual population growth for the City has been less than that anticipated by the 1998 Water
System Plan. Per capita water use has also been reduced since 1995. Current average day
water demand (ADD) is approximately 1.0 mgd, and the peak day demand (PDD) is
approximately 2.2 mgd.
4.2.2 PTPC Demand
PTPC, and the OGWS, operate at a set flow when water is plentiful. Power is generated
with a 375 KW turbine driven by the water supply. The turbine is designed to operate
given a constant water supply of 10,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 14.4 mgd. Flows less
than this significantly reduce the turbine's power factor and make it inefficient in
generating power.
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4.1
Jefferson County
Exhibit 4 -1
City of Port Townsend Water Demand Forecast
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
-
Maximum Day Demand
6.0
i]
City's lease agreement of 5.0 MGD
a 5.0
E
c 4.0
j Average Day Demand
3.0
2.0
I
I
I
I
1.0
I
I
0.0
I
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source of Data: City of Port Townsend 1998 Water System Plan (Table 4.6) Year
All water flowing through the turbine is used for power generation. While actual mill
usage varies greatly depending upon which processes are operational at a given time,
average water consumption is on the order of 12 mgd. This means an average of 2.4 mgd
is used solely for power generation. During past low flow conditions, the turbine has been
shut down temporarily, reducing total water usage at PTPC to paper production needs of
approximately 12 mgd. With additional curtailment procedures in place (as discussed
later), PTPC can operate at approximately 10.5 mgd. As recent events have shown, a
reduction in pulp and paper production can bring the use down to 8.5 mgd (with job and
profit losses). Additional techniques can be applied in the short-term (e.g., use of recycled
materials for paper production, as cited in the Port Townsend Leader, October 30, 2002) to
bring the use down further to 5.5 mgd.
4.3 Water Use - Tri -Area (PUD Service with Ground Water)
Prior to the transfer of the Tri-Area system from the City to the PUD, demands and forecasts for
the area were provided in the City's Water System Plan (1998). The population of the Tri-Area in
1995 was approximately 3,120. The average demand from 1992 to 1995 on an ADD basis was
0.56 mgd. Included in this use figure are contracted amounts of approximately 114,000 gallons per
day (gpd) to Indian Island (US Navy), and approximately 57,000 gpd to Marrowstone Island
customers (Fort Flagler and a federal fish hatchery).
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4.2
Jefferson County
In the City's Water System Plan, projections for the Tri-Area include a doubling of the population
to approximately 7,050 in 2046. This equates to a future demand of 1.32 mgd ADD and 2.84 mgd
PDD.
4.4 Stream Flow and Storage Needs
The focus of this section is on the City's use of, and diversion from, the Big Quilcene River. The
City's second supply from the Little Quilcene River is much smaller and has restrictions based on
low flows in the river. This makes the Big Quilcene the critical supply, as diversions are made to
supply the City and PTPC, as well as to fill reservoirs, prior to terminating diversions in order to
implement the City's voluntary stream flow protection of 27 cubic feet per second (cfs). For all
scenarios discussed below, it is assumed that water drafted from storage can only be used by the
City and PTPC (i.e., via the OGWS). In other words, although flows are diverted from the river to
storage, they cannot be rerouted out of storage back into the river to augment flows. This is the
case with the current storage facility at Lords Lake and most of the proposed storage options
discussed in Section 10.
The ability of storage, and other water supply alternatives, to meet regional needs aside from those
of the City and PTPC is discussed later in the report.
4.4.1 "Typical Yeae'
In the City's Water System Plan (1998), a graphical presentation is made of the "typical"
water flow in the Big Quilcene River. The "typical flow" compares closely to the 50
percent exceedance curve developed by Golder and Associates as shown in Figure 4.19 in
the Quilcene -Snow Watershed Planning Instream Flow Assessment — Step A, June 5, 2003.
The concept of this graphic has been modified, as provided in Exhibit 4 -2, for use in this
report to demonstrate:
• Stream Flow During a "Typical Year," — based upon actual stream flow data collected
in the 1970s.
• Current Water Needs — City, PTPC (full operation), and instream flows (27 cfs).
Currently the City has a voluntary commitment to leave 27 cfs (or more) in the Big
Quilcene River.
■ Future Water Needs — City (contract value), PTPC (full operation), and instream needs
(27 cfs).
■ Relative storage need under each of the above scenarios.
Exhibit 4 -2 shows that the storage need in a typical year is easily satisfied by the system's
existing storage (i.e., Lords Lake's 500 MG). It should be noted that City Lake is typically
not included in system storage as it is used as equalization storage and does not provide
significant long -term storage for the system. Even under the future water needs scenario,
Lords Lake storage is sufficient under a "typical year scenario" well into the future (timing
is dependent upon when the City's demands exceed 5.0 mgd).
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-3
Jefferson County
(Note: Subsequent to development of the analyses presented in this report, the City
provided an alternative set of hydrologic data which could be used to characterize
"typical" water flows near the Big Quilcene River diversion. Due to the limited timeline
and budget associated with this report, these data were not incorporated in the analyses
presented. However, the data should be considered in future efforts related to analysis of
water supply and storage needs. Table 4 -1 presents this alternative data set, as prepared
by John Orsborn for the Environmental Assessment for the City of Port Townsend 's
Special Use Permit Renewal (2003). The information includes US Geological Survey
stream flow data collected at the diversion since 1994)
Oct
267
94
24
332
117
29
Nov
416
180
38
521
222
44
Dec
581
245
77
700
296
94
Jan
588
251
53
689
296
63
Feb
492
224
54
583
266
64
Mar
375
178
66
443
210
79
Apr
310
177
94
365
210
112
May
370
204
101
452
250
126
Jun
334
175
78
417
220
98
Jul
228
101
41
284
128
51
Aug
115
56
25
144
70
31
Sep
128
46
21
159
57
26
Source: Orsbom, unpublished data, 3/12/2003.
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-4
Jefferson County
175
150
125
e
w
V 100
co
E
m
0
V
c�a 75
3
0
U.
6.111
25
0
Jul
Exhibit 4 -2
Big Quilcene River Flows (Typical) and Water Needs
July- October
Aug
Month
Sep
Oct
Nov
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-5
Jefferson County
"Typical" river flow just above diversion (as presented in Figure 5 -2
of
City of Port Townsend 1998 Water System Plan). Based upon
stream flow data collected in the 1970s.
Future Needs =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
7.75 cfs (5.0 MGD, City's 1983 lease agreement maximum)
Additional storage volume needed to meet
future needs = 177 MG (545 AF).
Total storage required = 491 MG (1,510 AF)
Current Needs=
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
Storage volume needed to satisfy
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
current needs = 314 MG (965 AF)
2.33 cfs (1.5 MGD, City's 2002 summer demand)
Aug
Month
Sep
Oct
Nov
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-5
Jefferson County
4.4.2 "Low Flow Year" (i.e., Drought in 2002)
Exhibit 4 -2 was further modified to demonstrate the situation that occurred in 2002.
Exhibit 4 -3 depicts this flow scenario, which was one of the driest on record. For
perspective, only two years show less precipitation — 1917 and 1987 (Bremerton Sun,
November 1, 2002). The 2002 hydrograph depicts a drier period during November than the
90 percent exceedance curve developed for that month by Golder and Associates (June 5,
2003). This figure shows that 610 MG of storage were needed in 2002 to meet demands.
This is 110 MG in excess of current storage capacity. The City and PTPC addressed this
situation by enacting certain curtailments to reduce demands during the low flow time, as
discussed later in the report. Considering future needs, the total amount of storage required
for operation of the OGWS in drought years is approximately 875 MG, based upon
graphical analysis of data presented in Exhibit 4 -3.
The "Current Needs" and "Future Needs" lines do not remain horizontal during the entire
time, because there is a period of time (late October /early November) during which river
flows actually drop below 27 cfs. Since storage can only be used to meet City and PTPC
needs (i.e., it is not available to augment stream flows), there is nothing that can be done to
protect the 27 cfs stream flow once the river flows actually drop below that level. Storage
could only aid in maintaining instream flows at 27 cfs if flow could be conveyed from
storage back into the river.
4.4.3 "Stream Flow Management Options"
Subsequent to the above analysis and development of storage options to address the needs
identified therein, the Planning Unit requested that additional scenarios be evaluated.
These scenarios provide an estimate of storage needed under various types of stream flow
management. These are hypothetical scenarios only. The discussion of storage options and
costs presented in Section 10 is not based upon the storage needs identified in this section.
Another version of Exhibit 4 -3 has been developed to show a hypothetical situation
reflecting an increase in desired instream flows, and how storage may be used to manage
such flows, at least in part. Specifically, Exhibit 4 -4 shows future stream flow protection as
being increased from 27 cfs to 30 cfs during the months of October through December.
This has the effect of raising the "Future Needs" line on the graph by 3 cfs during a portion
of that period of time. The resultant increase in required storage, over what was depicted in
Exhibit 4 -3, is 100 MG. This additional storage is required, as the City and PTPC would
need to rely solely upon storage for a longer period of time in order to maintain the higher
minimum flow of 30 cfs.
Another hypothetical situation is depicted in Exhibit 4 -5, assuming that diversions from the
Big Quilcene River are not permitted between September 1 and November 1 (the critical
period for summer chum spawning). This is done to illustrate how storage needs may be
calculated if river flows are not available for certain periods of time. As a result of leaving
all flows in the river for the two month period of September and October, PTPC and the
City must rely solely upon storage to meet their water needs. On a daily basis, therefore,
storage must be able to provide 17 mgd, considering the "future needs" scenario (5 mgd for
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-6
Jefferson County
the City and 12 mgd for PTPC). The purely hypothetical situation characterized here
indicates that there would be a total storage need of 1,290 MG. This storage requirement
would be different for other lengths of "no diversion" periods.
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4.7
Jefferson County
150
125
100
42
0
c
�a
E
0 75
c
�a
3
0
UIL 50
25
0
Aug
Exhibit 4 -3
Big Quilcene River Flows (2002) and Water Needs
August- December
Sep
Oct
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-8
Jefferson County
River flow during 2002 (from just above diversion)
Future Needs =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
r\
7.75 cfs (5.0 MGD, City's 1983 lease agreement maximum)
Additional storage volume needed to meet
future needs = 265 MG (815 AF).
Total storage required = 875 MG (2,690 AF)
Current Needs =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
Storage volume needed to satisfy
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
needs in 2002 = 610 MG (1,875 AF).
2.33 cfs (1.5 MGD, Citys 2002 summer demand)
Sep
Oct
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-8
Jefferson County
150
125
— 100
w
�a
E
0 75
c
co
3
0
ILL 50
25
i
Exhibit 4 -4
Big Quilcene River Flows (2002) and Water Needs
(with Instream Flow req't of 30 cfs from Oct 1 - Dec 31)
August- December
Aug
Sep
Oct
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-9
Jefferson County
River flow during 2002 (from just above diversion)
Future Needs =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit, increased to 30 cfs Oct -Dec) +
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
r\
IL 7.75 cfs (5.0 MGD, City's 1983 lease agreement maximum)
Additional storage volume needed to meet
future needs = 315 MG (965 AF).
Total storage required = 925 MG (2,840 AF)
Current Needs =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
Storage volume needed to satisfy
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
current needs = 610 MG (1,875 AF).
2.33 cfs (1.5 MGD, City's 2002 summer demand)
Aug
Sep
Oct
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-9
Jefferson County
200
175
150
125
.c
c
R
E
0 100
a
c
M
3
c 75
LL
50
25
0
Exhibit 4 -5
Big Quilcene River Flows (Typical) and Water Needs
(assuming no diversions for Sept 1- Nov 1)
Future Needs (with no rover diversion aII w =
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) +
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) +
7.75 cfs (5.0 MGD, Citys 1983 lease agreement maximum)
"Typical" river flow just above diversion (as presented in Figure 5 -2
of City of Port Townsend 1998 Water System Plan). Based upon
stream flow data collected in the 1970s.
0 all
Additional storage volume needed to meet
future needs = 976 MG (2,995 AF).
Current Needs = Total storage required = 1,290 MG (3,960 AF)
27 cfs (voluntary instream flow limit) + Storage volume needed to satisfy
18.6 cfs (12 MGD, PTPC at full operation) + current needs = 314 MG (965 AF)
2.33 cfs (1.5 MGD, City's 2002 summer demand)
Jul
Aug
Sep
Month
Oct
Nov
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-10
Jefferson County
4.4.4 Additional Notes Regarding Instrearn Flows
The WRIA 17 Planning Unit is continuing efforts to examine the topic of instream flows.
Those efforts may establish a more precise instream flow need in terms of timing and
quantity of water. With that information, a more refined storage scheme could be
developed to aid in the maintenance and management of instream flows.
Section 4 - Regional Setting 4-11
Jefferson County
This section includes an examination of management options for the largest water systems in
Jefferson County. In particular, the City of Port Townsend (City) and the Port Townsend Paper
Company (PTPC) manage the largest system: the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS)
capable of supplying up to 19.4 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Big Quilcene River. The
Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD) operates the second largest system which serves the
Tri-Area (Chimacum, Hadlock, and Irondale) with ground water sources in the area.
The OGWS is owned by the City. Therefore, the City owns the water rights as well as the
infrastructure. The City and PTPC operate under the terms of a contract which reserves 5 mgd for
the City, with the remainder available to PTPC. PTPC operates the pipeline and reservoir system,
and has total operational control. The current City -PTPC contract will expire in 2020.
The City's water supply policies, as summarized in Appendix G of the City's 1998 Water System
Plan, stipulate that the City is obligated to reserve and/or develop the supply system capacity
required to meet the current and future water demands within the City's incorporated limits and the
City's urban growth area (UGA) boundary. Water supply not so required may be sold to non -City
customers. Consequently, any suggested improvements or recommendations of this report are
subject to review and consideration by the City, and subject to the terms of its existing contact.
Similarly, the PUD has exclusive control over its resources, and management of its systems. The
PUD will need to be consulted to implement any potential solution which affects their systems.
Finally, some proposed improvements are located on private property. All property owners have
not been contacted, and any potential solution involving their property will require their
consultation, involvement, and agreement.
Section 5 - Policy Setting 5 -1
Jefferson County
Water conservation and reuse are water supply alternatives that could be employed in Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 to offset storage requirements by reducing potable water
demands. The evaluation in this section is aimed at estimating the degree to which these options
can offset, or reduce, the need for storage.
Information for the following analysis has been derived from the City of Port Townsend (City) and
the Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD) Water System Plans (developed in 1998 and
1996, respectively), and discussions with City, PUD, and the Port Townsend Paper Company
(PTPC) management.
In the discussion below, it is important to note that the water volume comparisons (percentage
comparisons) are done with respect to the storage volume needed in a "typical" year. If such
calculations were performed considering a "low flow" year, the resulting percentages could be
lower.
6.1 Jefferson County PUD
6.1.1 Conservation
The PUD has been providing conservation education for several years. In addition, the
utility has implemented a conservation rate structure (increasing price with increasing use).
In addition, the PUD implements leak detection efforts when unaccounted -for (metered vs.
production) water reaches the 20 percent level in its systems. The PUD will likely lower
this threshold in the near future as "acceptable" levels of unaccounted -for water are now in
the range of 10 -15 percent around the State.
There has not been an assessment of the effectiveness of conservation efforts within the
PUD's systems. This is partly due to the fact that not all accounts have meters installed.
Reductions in demand might be significant within the PUD's systems and specifically in
the Tri-Area system when compared with overall demand. However, these potential
savings are small when compared with the overall storage needs for the region. For
example, the 2014 demand estimated for the Tri-Area is 1.78 million gallons per day (mgd)
(estimated by the City in their 1998 Water System Plan, prior to the system's transfer to the
PUD). If a typical 1 percent per year reduction were achieved beginning in 2004, by 2014
the savings would be 0.18 mgd. If this is applied to the typical two month low flow period
(i.e., August and September), the result is 11 million gallons (MG) or 2.2 percent of the
required storage during "typical" flow years (491 MG, as shown on Exhibit 4 -2).
Section 6 - Conservation /Reuse 6-1
Jefferson County
6.1.2 Reuse
There are few significant opportunities for reuse currently in the PUD's system. However,
Jefferson County is currently undertaking General Sewer Planning for portions of the area
(including the business "core" of Hadlock). The results of this effort could include
recommendations for construction of a sewage treatment plant, and the possibility of
wastewater reuse (particularly on recreational areas). The extent of this possibility has not
been analyzed. In addition, the approximate 44,000 gallons per day (gpd) flowing through
the fish hatchery on the northern tip of Marrowstone Island may have reuse possibilities on
the Island (Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan). However, such reuse
activity would likely offset some future local water need that is not currently evaluated
since public water is not provided elsewhere on the Island.
6.2 City of Port Townsend
6.2.1 Conservation
The City has been promoting conservation for several years. Their public education has
involved school programs, informational brochure distribution, and an informational
display at the Jefferson County Fair. The City's efforts have included specific programs
such as those for service meters (now over 99 percent metered), an on -going leak detection
program, distribution of conservation kits (toilet flow splitters, faucet aerators, etc.).
Currently, and in the future, the City will be focusing on unaccounted -for water. Analysis
for their 1998 Water System Plan showed a 30 percent level of unaccounted -for water.
More recent analysis indicates a 5 percent level of unaccounted -for water. Efforts will be
focused on reductions where appropriate.
Landscape management (xeriscape) is also a thrust for specific customers. For these
targets, it is hoped that a 10 percent reduction in use can be achieved.
Overall, the City has targeted a 5 percent reduction in use by 2004 (over 1998 levels). The
City has indicated that future water savings associated with conservation efforts would be
approximately 3 -5 MG over the two month low flow period (compared with the 491 MG
needed in a "typical" flow year).
On a broad perspective, many communities are targeting a 1 percent per year savings. The
City's 2004 targets are in line with this level, but no savings are planned beyond the 2004
level. This reflects the debate over the extent to which conservation can continue to have
effects, and the fact that overall water use will increase as the City's population continues
to grow. Some planners believe that conservation savings are limited, and the effect of
conservation programs will peak in the near future, consistent with the approach taken in
the City's projections.
Section 6 - Conservation/Rouse 6-2
Jefferson County
6.2.2 Reuse
Major sources of supply for reuse within the City are limited. A focus of past analysis has
been the City's sewage treatment plant. The only potential significant user of this supply is
the City's golf course. During peak months, the facility demands about 100,000 gpd, based
on Water System Plan data. However, more recent information indicates usage in closer to
65,000 gpd. Over the two month low flow period, this amounts to approximately 4 MG or
1.0 percent of the storage requirement over the two month low flow period of a "typical"
year.
6.3 Port Townsend Paper Company
6.3.1 Mill Operations
A key curtailment option available to the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS) is the
shutting down of PTPC's power - generating turbine. This option has been utilized in the
past during low flow periods. With regard to this curtailment option, an important fact
pertaining to the impacts that the mill can have upon water demands is the following:
water conservation enacted within the mill reduces water consumption only when PTPC's
turbine is turned off. This is because a constant flow of water (14.4 mgd) is sent through
the turbine (see Section 4.2 for details); therefore, if PTPC reduces water usage within mill
operations by a certain amount, the resultant effect is an increase of the same amount in the
overflow, or spilled water. The flow through the turbine is still maintained at 14.4 mgd.
With this in mind, a recommended operational strategy for PTPC is to shut the turbine off
immediately when drafting of system storage (i.e., Lords Lake) begins in order to meet
needs during low flow periods. In this way, stored water will be used most efficiently.
This, in concert with conservation and curtailment measures discussed below, will aid in
optimizing use of the existing and future storage facilities.
There is a cost to PTPC (in the form of a lost power credit) of approximately $200 per day
when the turbine is shut down. Because the shut down reduces water flow to the mill by
approximately 2.5 mgd, the cost of this measure is $80 per MG of water saved.
6.3.2 Curtailment
The most recent supply shortage (2002) provided confirmation of the following procedures
for temporary curtailment enacted by PTPC:
• Prior to curtailment: Flow at 14.4 mgd
• Turbine shut down: Flow lowered to 12 mgd
■ Curbing of excessive use of water for general cleaning and maintenance purposes:
Flow lowered to 10.5 mgd
■ Stop production on one paper machine for two weeks: Flow lowered to 8.5 mgd
Section 6 - Conservation /Reuse 6.3
Jefferson County
As was demonstrated in 2002, the curtailment process culminated with a shut down of
paper production and loss of jobs in the last two weeks of a low flow period that was about
two months long, similar to the "typical" low flow period, but starting about a month late.
However, this low flow period resulted in an overall larger deficit because of lower flows
for a greater proportion of the two month period.
6.3.3 Conservation/Reuse
The mill has been actively pursuing conservation and reuse for several years. The City's
1998 Water System Plan provides the following summary of historic and possible future
actions:
1995 Usage
Normal diversions with mill overflows
Normal diversions w/o mill overflows
Recent and Impendine Changes
Recycle Plant operation
Potential Water Use Increases
Recycle plant Phase II
Other Conservation Opportunities
1) Reclaim vacuum pump seal water
2) No. 10 PB system on recycled water
3) Cooling water reclaims
4) Reduced feedwater make -up
5) Chemical pulp mill shut down
1995
--
13.50
1995
-1.50
12.00
1996
0.72
12.72
Not sched.
0.35
13.07
Not sched.
-0.72
12.35
Not sched.
-0.35
12.00
Not sched.
-0.50
11.50
Not sched.
-0.15
11.35
Not sched.
-2.00
9.35
Source of data: Table 5 -3 from City of Port Townsend Water System Plan (1998)
(1) The resulting usages based on the changes presented in this table are computed from 12 mgd (normal diversions without mill
overflows).
As can been seen from the table above, there are conservation measures yet to be scheduled
or completed. The most significant of these is the shut down of chemical pulp production.
This would be a permanent scenario that would require PTPC to shift its raw materials and
market base, resulting in capital expenditures of at least $100 million needed to retool the
mill, as estimated by PTPC staff. Aside from this drastic and highly unlikely measure, an
additional savings of 1.72 mgd is possible, but currently no plans are in place to implement
these improvements. Total costs for the other conservation activities is estimated to be on
the order of $400,000, according to PTPC staff.
If all conservation were in place (except closure of the chemical pulping facility), "typical
use" would drop by 1.72 mgd, a reduction which over a two month low flow period could
amount to 103 MG or 21 percent of the storage need for a "typical" period.
Section 6 — Conservation /Reuse 6-4
Jefferson County
Conjunctive use is a well known concept in water management and has been used in many areas of
the country to optimize both surface and ground water supplies. Under this concept, during high
flow periods, surface water would be provided to areas currently utilizing ground water (e.g., the
Tri- Area), thereby "resting" the ground water aquifers. During low flow periods, these ground
water sources would be used to augment or replace reduced surface water supplies to the City of
Port Townsend (City) and the Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC). This concept can be
expanded to use of any ground water source (existing or new) to supplement supply during low
flow periods.
The discussion below focuses primarily upon use of the Jefferson County Public Utility District's
(PUD) wells in a conjunctive use scenario. If this approach is pursued, further work might be done
to examine not only the PUD's existing ground water supplies, but also the Kala Point Supply
(because of its proximity to the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS)). This logic then
expands to finding any new ground water source along the OGWS pipeline to augment supply.
Table 7 -1 contains basic data pertaining to the PUD system, including water rights, well capacities,
and water demands.
Water Riehts
Annual (Qa) 1.14 mgd
Instantaneous (Qi) 3.53 mgd
Well Capacities
Sparling #1
0.90 mgd
Sparling #2
1.73 mgd
Kivlev
0.14 mgd
Total
2.77 mgd
Treatment Capacity 1.50 mgd
Water Demands
Year Average Day (mgd) Peak DU (mgd)
2004 0.72 1.56
2014 0.83 1.78
2046 1.32 2.84
7.1 Discussion
Total pumping capacity for the PUD's system is 2.77 million gallons per day (mgd). If this supply
were treated (currently there is not enough treatment capacity), and provided to the OGWS to
augment City and mill needs, the Tri-Area needs would need to be deducted first. In 2004 (at 1.56
mgd peak day demand (PDD)) this would leave approximately 1.21 mgd of "surplus" water that
could be sent to the City and PTPC. During the two month low flow period in a typical year, this
Section 7 - Conjunctive Use 7.1
Jefferson County
would be 72.6 million gallons (MG) (15 percent of the storage required in a "typical" year). This is
a significant amount of water considering the production curtailment for PTPC in 2002 was
approximately two weeks at about 3.5 mgd or 50 MG. As noted above, the Tri-Area use will
expand, so this "surplus" will diminish over time unless new source(s) are found.
Obviously this Tri-Area conjunctive use concept has both promise and problems:
• It is promising in that a good source or sources of ground water could supply both the City and
PTPC with a need during low flow periods. Depending on the amount of "surplus" ground
water, this conjunctive use could allow for more surface water to remain in the rivers to
maintain instream flows during low flow times of the year.
• This concept has problems in that ground water is not known to be plentiful or of high quality.
Any use of the existing Tri-Area sources would require treatment for iron and manganese.
Based upon a unit capital cost of $850,000 per mgd, the capital cost of such facilities to treat
the remaining 1.77 mgd of well capacity that exceeds the existing 1.50 mgd treatment capacity
is $1,500,000. Annual operating and maintenance (O &M) costs are estimated to be $40,000,
including labor, chemical, maintenance, and power costs. Assuming a service life of 20 years
for the treatment facilities, the total O &M costs for 20 years (in 2003 dollars) is $800,000.
Therefore, to provide 72.6 MG to the OGWS during a two -month low flow period, the total
cost per MG is approximately $32,000.
Furthermore, during plentiful surface water periods, if the Tri-Area were provided surface
water from the OGWS, this water would also have to be treated to meet drinking water
standards (generally interpreted to mean a filtered supply). Based upon a unit capital cost of
$1,500,000 per mgd, the capital cost of such facilities to treat the 2004 PDD of 1.56 mgd is
$2,340,000. Annual O &M costs are estimated to be $60,000, including labor and maintenance
costs. Assuming a service life of 20 years for the treatment facilities, the total O &M costs for
20 years (in 2003 dollars) is $1,200,000.
Therefore, to receive 72.6 MG of supply from the OGWS (an amount equal to that provided to
the OGWS from Tri-Area sources during low flow periods), the total cost per MG is
approximately $50,000.
Adding the costs of both ground water and surface water treatment, the total cost per MG is
approximately $82,000.
■ This concept also has promise if it were expanded to include a network of ground water
sources along the OGWS pipeline route. While these sources would require additional water
rights, the environmental impact might be tolerable depending on the basin in which they are
located. Treatment may or may not be needed depending on the quality of water. The US
Geological Survey (USGS) is completing a study in ground water characterization of eastern
Jefferson County, which may help to better define such options in the future.
Section 7 - Conjunctive Use 7.2
Jefferson County
Based upon a unit capital cost of $200,000 per mgd (i.e., the cost of two 100 -foot deep, 350
gallon per minute (gpm) wells), the cost of new wells to provide 1.2 mgd to the OGWS (which
represents 72.6 mgd over a two month low flow period) is approximately $240,000. Annual
O &M costs are estimated to be $5,000, including power and maintenance costs. Assuming a
service life of 20 years for the wells, the total O &M costs for 20 years (in 2003 dollars) is
$100,000.
Therefore, to provide 72.6 MG to the OGWS during a two month low flow period, the total
cost per MG is approximately $5,000. This assumes no treatment of this ground water is
necessary. If such treatment were necessary, costs would be similar to those described above
for the expanded use of the PUD wells.
Combining this with the cost of surface water treatment (for water received from the OGWS),
the total cost per MG is approximately $55,000.
Section 7 - Conjunctive Use 7.3
Jefferson County
Aquifer storage and retrieval (ASR) is a concept that is being implemented in some areas of
Washington State. Under this approach, aquifers are recharged by surface water (by injection
wells or infiltration) during a high flow period, then used during dry months that are accompanied
by diminished surface supplies. When used in conjunction with surface supplies, it becomes an
extension of the conjunctive use concept described above.
For this approach to work, soils and geology have to be such that water placed in storage is
available (i.e., has not dissipated) when needed.
For this study, several sources of information were reviewed including:
• Well logs for various areas in eastern Jefferson County
• A hydrogeologic assessment of eastern Jefferson County currently being completed by the US
Geological Survey (USGS)
• Eastern Jefferson County Groundwater Characterization Study (Jefferson County PUD, May
1994)
■ Sparling Wellhead Analysis (City of Port Townsend 1995)
These studies indicate that the soils and geology in the area would make the concept difficult to
implement because the aquifers are limited, and not confined.
During the workshop, members of the Planning Unit expressed their concerns that along with these
indicators, it was generally understood that implementation of ASR would require extensive study
and be extremely costly.
The USGS is under contract to produce a detailed report of ground water in eastern Jefferson
County. Contact was made with the USGS, and based on the extensive work completed to date, it
appears the area would not offer much potential for ASR (Personal Communication, Bill Simonds,
USGS, April 2003). The area contains multiple discontinuous aquifers, without any real
boundaries, so water put into the ground would likely disperse, and migrate to salt water. Retrieval
of the stored water would therefore be difficult.
Based on these data, concerns, and reports, this option was not pursued further.
Section 8 - Aquifer Storage and Retrieval 8 -1
Jefferson County
The Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS) was constructed in the late 1920s to accommodate
the needs of the Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) and the City of Port Townsend (City).
While the system has been upgraded in many ways, and additional supply from the Little Quilcene
River added in 1956, this 28.5 mile pipeline and system operates in much the same way today as it
did in the past.
9.1 Operation of the OGWS
The OGWS transfers water from the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers through Lords Lake
and City Lake and into the City. Water is stored in two City -owned elevated reservoirs (total
storage 6 million gallons (MG)) and one 100,000 gallon reservoir owned by PTPC.
Water from the Big Quilcene River enters the OGWS through a diversion intake and flows by
gravity to City Lake. The Little Quilcene diversion flows to Lords Lake, also by gravity. Water
from the Big Quilcene River can be diverted from the transmission line into Lords Lake. If Lords
Lake overflows, a spillway returns water to the Little Quilcene River via Howe Creek.
A combined flow from the Big Quilcene River and Lords Lake can flow to City Lake. While it is
possible to bypass City Lake, all water from the Big Quilcene River and Lords Lake passes
through the City Lake reservoir. When City Lake reaches capacity, water flow from the Big
Quilcene River and/or Lords Lake is reduced.
After leaving City Lake, the water is screened and chlorinated. Because of water quality
regulations (chlorine contact time (CT)) water that enters the City system flows to the two
reservoirs prior to being supplied to any customers. Water flowing to PTPC does not go through
the City's reservoirs but meets minimum CT requirements, according to the City.
9.2 Operational Improvements
It is not possible to efficiently fill both Lords Lake and City Lake at the same time. When the
valve is closed downstream to force backpressure on the line and direct water to Lords Lake, there
is cavitation in the pipeline downstream of the valve.
Installation of flow control valves at the appropriate locations in the pipeline can provide the
operators with the ability to fill both reservoirs at the same time and to run the system at a level of
higher efficiency.
The valves need to be located carefully to take advantage of the relative elevations of the
diversions and lakes. In addition, the line could become over pressurized if flows in the line are
diminished to too great an extent. Selection of locations for the control valves must take into
consideration potential static pressures in the line. An elevation of 600 is likely to be the lowest
elevation that could be used for any control valves.
Section 9 - Olympic Gravity Water System 9 -1
Jefferson County
The existing valves are operated manually. Staff are currently required to go to the site to open or
close the valves. Any new control valves should be capable of automatic adjustment and should be
remotely controlled (able to be opened or closed from a central location).
9.3 Costs /Benefits
Costs for the modifications to the control valves and installation of valve telemetry are small
compared to the capital costs for new storage. The new valve is estimated to cost $25,000
including telemetry, power operation, and the other required fittings to install it into the existing
pipeline.
Benefits from installation of the valves and telemetry are primarily realized by the operations
personnel who manage the pipeline. They will have to travel less to operate the system, will have
better information on the operation of the pipeline, and the reservoir levels will be easier to
maintain.
However, having the new valves and telemetry will not assist in providing additional water during
periods of low flow in the rivers. The primary benefit is accrued during the higher flow periods
with less flow in the pipe and more remaining in the rivers (i.e., available for maintaining higher
instream flows).
Section 9 - Olympic Gravity Water System 9-2
Jefferson County
This section describes the selection and evaluation of potential surface water storage sites that
would be used to meet the objectives of this study.
10.1 Initial Site Selection Criteria
Among the criteria used to determine whether a storage site location or feature was worthy of
review were the following:
• Relative close proximity to the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS) pipeline and/or other
population centers.
• Multiple benefits extending to other water users beyond the Port Townsend Paper Company
(PTPC) and the City of Port Townsend (City).
• Net positive impacts on native and anadramous fisheries and other wildlife.
• No obvious "fatal flaws" from an environmental impact or permitting perspective.
• An impression of there being a positive costibenefit relationship.
• Overall sense that the project or site had a fairly strong likelihood of completion success
factoring in public benefits, facility cost, satisfaction of water storage goal, local and tribal
support (or at least not strong opposition to), etc.
10.2 Preliminary Site Selection
A preliminary list of sites were selected and presented to the workshop of Planning Unit members
(City, Jefferson County, and the Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD)). This list included
the following:
• Expansion of Lords Lake and City Lake
• Pederson Lake
• Gibbs Lake
• Delanty Lake
• Anderson Lake
• Use of the Morgan Hill reservoirs
During the workshop the following direction was provided by those attending:
• Do not evaluate the Morgan Hill reservoirs — The City has already established that they are at
the wrong location to be useful, and because of leaks, they are unstable and dangerous.
• The use of Anderson Lake or Gibbs Lake will be difficult due to their current recreational use.
■ Other lakes may be possibilities — e.g., Tarboo Lake.
Section 10 - Storage 10-1
Jefferson County
■ The City has its needs "guaranteed" under its contract. Many storage options to deal with
situations similar to 2002 may only benefit PTPC. Instream enhancements (for fish) should be
an equally important selection criteria.
10.3 Refined Site Selection and Analysis
Following the input received from the workshop, a select group of potential storage sites was
developed, using the following approach.
10.3.1 Hydrology
First, available hydrologic records were collected and used in evaluating the hydrologic
potential of each site. Then, the suitability and reliability of the source was assessed to
determine if the source was a satisfactory option for delivering water to a proposed storage
feature. During preliminary review of the 2002 low flow event, a range of storage goals
was identified, with the lowest end of the range defined as 80 million gallons (MG) or 246
acre -feet (ac -ft), knowing that at least 50 MG of additional storage (equal to the
approximately two weeks of temporary mill shut down that occurred) was needed in 2002
to forego temporary shut downs of mill processes. All of the prospective projects
considered herein would satisfy that goal.
While the options were not sized to meet the storage needs identified under the "stream
flow management options" discussion in Section 4.4.3, the unit costs developed for the
options could be applied to those identified storage needs in order to obtain an estimate of
cost for such facilities.
10.3.2 Conceptual Design
The approach involved securing available mapping and topography and other background
information for each site from the Jefferson County Geographical Information System
(GIS), US Geological Survey (USGS), etc. Each potential storage site was visited. Land
acquisition requirements, parcel owners, and the Jefferson County Assessor records were
acquired to establish land values. Project elements including access roads, inlets, outlets,
etc. were sized and determined. Finally, conceptual level plan layouts and sufficient cross
sections and details were completed to enable cut and fill calculations to be performed
along with projected water storage volumes.
10.3.3 Cost Estimates
This task involved completion of an estimate of probable costs to construct each storage
project including costs of land acquisition, access roads, project features, engineering and
construction management, and recommended contingencies.
Section 10 - Storage 10-2
Jefferson County
10.4 Site Analysis
This section describes in greater detail the six specific storage options evaluated. Exhibit 10 -1
provides locations of each site, while Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -7 provide site maps and typical
cross sections for each alternative. These exhibits are provided at the end of this section.
10.4.1 Penny Creek Drainage Water Offset Project
Penny Creek is one of the few remaining "undeveloped" or underutilized surface water
sources existing in close proximity to the OGWS. Runoff from this high elevation
watershed could be captured in a common, arch - section embankment. Given that the
OGWS pipeline is located at a higher elevation than Penny Creek, introducing or diverting
this water into the OGWS would likely be costly and technically challenging. However,
the potential value of offsetting or replacing Quilcene flows during low flow periods for the
benefit of fisheries is attractive and worth pursuing with regard to this option. The storage
yield from this reservoir could translate into 4 cubic feet per second (cfs), supplementing
naturally occurring flows during a given low water month (e.g., August. or September).
This would result in a range of potential management options. If 4 cfs were introduced into
the Big Quilcene (at the fish hatchery) and City/PTPC diversions were also increased by 4
cfs at the same time, there would be no net effect on flows downstream of the hatchery, but
flow would be reduced between the diversion and the hatchery. If, however, City/PTPC
diversions were not increased when the 4 cfs were introduced into the river (due, for
example, to the existence of other storage facilities to meet needs), the resultant effect
would be a 4 cfs increase in flows downstream of the hatchery.
10.4.2 Lords Lake Expansion
Lords Lake serves as Jefferson County's primary water storage reservoir. The possible
expansion of Lords Lake was previously studied by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM), in
October of 2000. Two expansion alternatives were examined at that time: a 100 percent
capacity increase and a 50 percent capacity increase. CDM concluded that both expansion
alternatives were not feasible due to difficulties with filling the enlarged reservoir.
However, a smaller expansion may be feasible. Based upon Lords Lake's present capacity
of 1,660 ac -ft, a 16 percent expansion would meet the target storage expansion goal of 80
MG. Costs for this alternative were based upon CDM's unit costs for the 50 percent
capacity increase, with a few items added in order to be consistent with the estimates
prepared for the other options. This is a strong alternative, particularly in view of its
comparatively low unit cost for storage, and relative ease in permitting an expansion of an
already existing facility.
10.4.3 City Lake Expansion
Expansion of City Lake, the City's existing daily regulating or balancing reservoir, was
another of the options considered to create additional storage capacity. City Lake has a
present capacity of 370 ac -ft and is used to satisfy very short-term (hourly) variations
between demand and supply. Advantages of a potential expansion to this reservoir
include a lower unit cost for storage given the existing facilities already in place
Section 10 - Storage 10-3
Jefferson County
(reservoir, pipelines, screening facility, etc.), its close proximity to the water demand
center, and comparatively simple permitting requirements. The intention for this
alternative is simply to expand and raise the existing embankments by 10 feet. In this
case, 10 feet of additional water storage depth translates into an additional 300 ac -ft of
volume, nearly doubling the present capacity of this facility.
10.4.4 Excavated Site Storage
One of the more interesting alternatives considered is the concept of excavating an
impoundment out of an undeveloped land tract near the OGWS. From a planning and
engineering perspective, there still remains a number of workable, undeveloped land
parcels; and, property for this type of facility would likely be more easily obtained than for
some of the other options considered. The supply source for an "excavated" reservoir
could be either a diversion directly off the OGWS pipeline, or perhaps a new ground water
well.
The concept for this type of facility relies on the direct excavation and reuse of native soils
and a balanced cut/fill earthmoving operation. It is assumed that there are sufficient, low
cost sources of low permeability soils to allow this type of project to work from an
engineering perspective, and if believed necessary, an impermeable membrane liner could
be utilized to insure water - holding integrity. The layout of this project was intentionally
conceptualized to result in a storage yield matching the target goal of 80 MG. Depending
upon the positioning of an "excavated" reservoir facility, the size and resulting storage
capacity could be much larger than the 80 MG target. A larger reservoir facility would
obviously provide additional water for extended drought periods to address either
domestic /industrial or fisheries - related water needs.
10.4.5 Natural Lake Storage
The region surrounding the OGWS pipeline has numerous natural lakes of various sizes
and characters that could be considered attractive for their storage potential. Among
these are Delanty, Tarboo, Petersen, Anderson, and Gibbs Lakes. Each one of these lakes
has unique characteristics, and in turn advantages and disadvantages. Given the budget
limitations for this review, this alternative was simplified by creating a "generic" natural
lake alternative. A cost estimate was then prepared for that generalized version. The
concept requires the diversion of surplus flows from the OGWS pipeline during high
flow /low demand months and any contributing drainages, and reintroduction of the stored
water at high demand /low flow periods. A diversion and return pipeline, or conveyance
and a pumping plant would be necessary given the relative elevation differential between
the OGWS pipeline and all of the natural lakes examined. Permitting for this type of
project would be difficult and relatively costly, as would the anticipated mitigation
requirement (currently a 3 for 1 exchange, meaning for every acre of natural wetland
removed or degraded, 3 acres of offsetting constructed wetlands are required).
Nevertheless, taking advantage of one or more of the many existing natural storage
features seems to be a logical and viable method of extending the area's water resources.
Section 10 - Storage 10-4
Jefferson County
10.4.6 Other Potential Options Considered
In addition to the alternatives identified above, several other options for surface water
storage were briefly considered. On- channel, run -of -river impoundments on either the
Big or Little Quilcene River upstream of the existing diversion structures are potentially
viable options. Significant permitting difficulty, as well as substantial expense and time
to obtain a new instream diversion/withholding right, is anticipated with this alternative.
Nevertheless, the terrain in each of these areas is conducive to a water storage reservoir,
each drainage has fairly good road access, and other favorable characteristics to merit
further consideration. Either drainage could readily provide the desired storage target.
Further research and review of the potential permitting and environmental issues is
warranted. From a cost perspective, an on- channel storage facility sized at 250 ac -ft is
expected to have a total cost on the order of $5 million.
Other run -of -river, both off- and on- channel, storage options exist within Jefferson
County that could provide storage to meet regional needs, such as Tri-Area demands, and
would not necessarily be targeted for connection to the OGWS (i.e., Chimacum and
Thorndyke Creeks). However, the cost and difficulty associated with attempting to
secure Department of Ecology approvals and new surface water diversion water rights
make such options less attractive than the others discussed above.
The old Morgan Hill reservoir site within the City warranted a brief look, but was quickly
ruled out due to size limitations (5 MG) and security and safety concerns. A new steel or
concrete tank storage facility at the original Morgan Hill site is not likely to be approved
and constructed given today's current economic conditions, tight capital improvement
budgets, safety and insurance- related concerns, and what would be a relatively high unit
cost for storage, given a small site.
10.5 Cost Estimates
To extend the evaluation of the candidate storage sites, reasonably detailed cost estimates were
developed for each alternative, based upon preliminary layouts, cross sections, and details. The
cost estimates include costs of construction materials, equipment, and other elements related to
such projects. "Hard" and "soft" cost items were captured to the extent possible, so that a realistic
understanding of project costs is obtained for future evaluation and planning. More detailed
engineering designs would result in better precision in these cost estimates, but given the
limitations of this grant budget, a 30 percent contingency has been included to account for any
inaccuracies in take -offs or unit pricing, as well as unforeseen items that will undoubtedly occur
during the course of construction. The contingency includes the need for permitting, which may in
turn involve such activities as mitigation (e.g., wetland construction, fish ladder construction, etc.).
The estimates reflect current Washington State Dam Safety standards and design requirements.
Items such as perimeter fencing, emergency spillways, reliably controlled outlet works, etc. are
reflected in these requirements and in turn, in the project cost estimates.
The Jefferson County Assessor's Office was contacted for assistance in estimating land values,
which were then confirmed via phone conversations with several randomly- selected local realtors.
Section 10 - Storage 10.5
Jefferson County
Individual property owners were not contacted to inquire what value or pricing they would want
for their property, in order to avoid alarming residents and perhaps obtaining unrealistic land
values.
A major exclusion to the cost estimates should be noted. It is not known how sponsoring agencies,
water user groups, and other beneficiaries might fund these potential projects and, as such, no
attempt was made to estimate costs of project financing and debt repayment. With this cost
element factored into, or added to the estimates, a generally complete planning level estimate of
costs for each alternative could be finalized.
Table 10 -1 provides a summary of the planning -level cost estimates. It is interesting to note that
the costs for the alternatives reviewed range from $0.96 million to slightly over $2.4 million, with
the exception of the run -of -river option which is estimated at $5 million (again excluding project
financing costs). The unit cost for storage for the expansion of Lords Lake (50 percent) and City
Lake, the two alternatives considered to be most attractive in terms of economic benefit are
$3,900 /ac -ft and $4,100/ac-ft respectively. The unit cost for the Penny Creek alternative, which
includes potential benefits to fisheries, is not much higher at $4,503 /ac -ft.
Penny Creek
258
84
$1.16M
$4,500
$14,000
Lords Lake Enlargement
246
80
$0.96M
$3,900
$12,000
City Lake Enlargement
298
97
$1.21M
$4,100
$12,500
Off - Channel Excavated Lake
249
81
$1.56M
$6,300
$19,000
Natural Lakes
279
91
$1.30M
$4,700
$14,500
Run -of- River, On- channel
250
81
$5.00M
$20,000
$62,000
10.6 Management Options
The operation and management of any the proposed storage facilities could have a large impact on
how effective a new off - channel storage facility is at addressing Jefferson County's drought
reserves and increasing water demands. Storage alternatives have been selected and evaluated that
benefit the largest number of people and as many diverse interests as possible; a goal that is always
a challenge on public works projects of this type and scale.
The following comments are offered in relation to how these facilities might likely be operated and
best utilized:
■ The Penny Creek alternative (and the Big Quilcene on- channel storage option as well) offers
the greatest direct benefit to depressed and threatened local fisheries as stored water could be
routed directly back to the Big Quilcene to augment flows. These facilities would be located
well upstream of anadromous barriers, and flow releases could be timed to provide the
maximum benefit to fish and wildlife habitat. Generally speaking, these options would be used
Section 10 - Storage 10-6
Jefferson County
to store surplus spring runoff and peak storm event flows that exceed the instream flow and
current diversion requirements. Stored water would then be released during the late season low
flow periods.
It is also conceivable that water from one of these "upstream" alternatives could be used by the
PUD, as well as by the City and PTPC, if certain water delivery tie -ins and OGWS
improvements were made.
Detailed planning of on- channel storage options should consider the sediment load in the river,
and the impact of this upon reservoir sizing.
■ An expanded Lords Lake would allow increased flexibility in how and when water is conveyed
to downstream users, and conceivably could provide an expanded water supply for longer
drought periods than other options considered. This alternative has the lowest unit cost for
storage of any of the options examined. Given that this is an existing water delivery system,
this alternative rises to the top in the evaluation of options.
■ The excavated storage facility option could be sited in a number of locations within close
proximity to the OGWS. In addition, this approach could be used in the Tri-Area provided an
acceptable and economic supply source is identified. Diverting and transferring water from the
OGWS pipeline is certainly an option, as is a ground water well source, but the implications
and costs of any new supply and delivery or return facilities have to be considered in a
complete evaluation of this option.
• Any of the natural lake sites examined is problematic from the standpoint of permitting, source
water supply, and delivery. With that said, a good number of the local lakes unquestionably
have untapped water storage potential. Of the regional lakes examined, Tarboo Lake appears
to show the most promise or potential.
• An expanded City Lake would be beneficial to the City and PTPC, and could possibly benefit
other downstream water users or interest groups.
Section 10 - Storage 10.7
Jefferson County
* * *WP: Include 7 CAD exhibits at end of this section. They are 11x17 landscape
PDFs, numbered Exhibit 10 -1 thru 10 -7. * **
Section 10 - Storage 10-8
Jefferson County